Does a conflict arise just because a lawyer represents two clients, a county college and its depository bank, that have a continuing relationship with each other?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquirer was the designated attorney for a county college. He was also a director of a bank and counsel to that bank in certain matters not involving customer-related work. The bank was one of two depositories of the county college's funds. The inquirer had divorced himself from any involvement in the relationship between the bank and the college, and depositories were selected through a competitive bidding process. He asked whether a conflict existed merely because he represented two clients with a continuing relationship in which he did not participate for either client.
The Committee found no conflict. It stated that no conflict exists simply because an attorney represents two clients who have a continuing relationship.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, which abolished the "appearance of impropriety" standard underlying conflict opinions of this era. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Is there a conflict just because a lawyer's two clients deal with each other?
A: Per the opinion, no. The Committee found no conflict where the lawyer represents two clients with a continuing relationship and takes no part for either in that relationship.
Q: What facts mattered to the Committee?
A: The opinion noted that the inquirer had divorced himself from any involvement in the bank-college relationship and that depositories were chosen through a bidding process.
Background and rules framework
The opinion addresses concurrent representation of two clients whose dealings with each other are continuing but in which the lawyer plays no role for either side. The Committee resolved it without invoking a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct, treating the bare fact of a relationship between two clients as insufficient, by itself, to create a conflict.
Citations and references
The opinion cites no statutes, cases, or prior opinions.
See also
- NJ ACPE Op. 608: A Lender's Attorney Performing the Borrower's Closing Work
- NJ ACPE Op. 606: Counsel to a Regional Utilities Authority Appearing Before a Member Town's Zoning Board
Source
- Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp601-1.html
- Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page
Original opinion text
Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.
120 N.J.L.J. 251, July 30, 1987
OPINION 601
Conflict of Interest: Counsel to County College Serving as Counsel and Board Member to Bank in which College's Funds are Deposited
The inquirer here is designated attorney for a county college. He is also a member of the board of directors of a bank and counsel to the bank in certain matters, not including customer related matters. The bank is one of two depositories of funds of the county college. The facts set out indicate that inquirer has assiduously divorced himself on both sides from being involved in any relationship between the bank and the college. Further, depositories are chosen based upon a bidding process whereby the highest bidders are chosen to be depositories. The issue posed in the inquiry is:
Does a conflict of interest exist merely because an attorney represents two clients that have a continuing relationship with each other, but in which the attorney does not participate for either client in that relationship?
It is clear that no conflict exists by the simple reason that an attorney represents two clients who have a continuing relationship.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1987 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.